In the wake of another terrorist attack that left 14 people dead and 21 wounded in San Bernadino, the question once again rises on whether the government should get further involved in the sales, purchase, and ownership of firearms. We’ve seen this enough times to know how it will all progress. Both sides will bristle at each other, some shots will be fired, and eventually things will taper down. Ultimately, very little, if anything, will have changed. Large scale gun reforms are nearly impossible to accomplish in the United States.

In American culture, self-reliance has always been a central theme. This extends further than our economic identity and has a key presence in our idea of defense. In Europe’s past, specifically the feudal era, peasants and serfs completely relied on their lords for protection. If marauders were spotted over the hill, the town would send a courier to their lord then wait until the knights were dispatched to defend the village or, more often the case, search the ruins for any survivors. Hundreds of years of this is the reason that when there’s an attack in Europe, the Europeans are perfectly content with sitting on their hands until the police show up with their batons and tasers.

In America, things have been different. When a pack of wolves, group of bandits, or warring native tribes threatened your settlement, there was no higher power to call upon. England was across an ocean and any royal garrison, if any existed at all, was most likely located in major cities like Boston or New York. Our predecessors knew that no help was coming and it fell upon them to defend themselves. This solidified gun culture in America and, and when the sparks of revolution turned into a fire, it was militias that carried the bulk of the fighting. It is embedded in our culture to defend ourselves, and the most effective way to do that is with firearms.

I’m not here to argue the benefits or disadvantages of gun control, but there are political reasons that no progress is being made in the gun debate, and that’s because the N.R.A will not back down. Now, before you call them stubborn monsters who like to profit off the deaths of children, it should be well noted that the N.R.A and gun rights advocates have compromised far more than those on the other end of the aisle. In the Founder’s day, the musket was the absolute peak of military technology, and they allowed it to be wielded by the average citizen. However, with the gun acts of '34, '68, and the 80’s and 90’s, the gun rights group has lost a fair amount of ground. Now, attitudes change, cultures change, but the fact that the only thing the gun control lobby can put on the table is "we’ll let you keep what we don’t take from you" is not inspiring much cooperation across the aisle, because it has been established that any compromise on the N.R.A’s part will lead to a loss.

The final flaw of any gun reform movement is a complete lack of feasible alternative in regards to safety. Gun Free Zones clearly don’t work, as shown in Sandy Hook. Statewide bans clearly don’t work, as shown in San Bernadino. National bans don’t work, as shown in the Paris attacks and in regards to prevention they are also lacking in solutions. Gun registration wouldn’t prevent a shooting, and the only true point of it is to know who has guns in case the government ever wants to confiscate them. Background checks on private sales could be a benefit, but as someone who has both privately sold and bought guns, I can assure you the process is lengthy, costly, and only effective if the person has a diagnosed mental issue which can only truly be known if they’ve committed a crime and were analyzed. As for the limit on magazines or clips, are you kidding? It takes five seconds to reload a magazine, and you can buy an ammo vest at any military surplus store. If anything, the longer they’re firing on one magazine, the better the chance that the gun will jam. As of date, the gun control lobby has no feasible solution to the issue, and many of the candidates on that side of the issue are woefully ignorant about the nitty gritty of firearms.

I would like everyone to take a step back and at least try to find the optimism of living in a country where 14 people dying qualifies as news. There are nations out there where 30 people dying wouldn’t even make local television, and when tragedies like these arise, I try to look on the brighter side of it all. Whether America has a ‘mass shooting’ epidemic is debatable, but with our culture of self-defense, the N.R.A’s line in the sand, and the complete lack of alternative on the opposing side, this terrorist attack will most likely leave no significant change on gun culture in the United States.